The Heretics: Lord Christopher Monckton

Given the dogmatic fervor of global warming proponents, and their intolerance of skeptics who dare to question the latest commandment (see: cap-and-trade) in the green scripture, it is perhaps no coincidence that the environmentalist movement sometimes seems to have more in common with theology than with science. If that is true, then the logical word to describe those scientists who have challenged environmental hysteria and extremism is “heretics.” In a series of profiles, Front Page’s Rich Trzupek will spotlight prominent scientists whose “heretical” research, publications, and opinions have helped add a much-needed dose of balance and fact to environmental debates that for too long have been driven by fear mongering and alarmism. In a field that demands political conformity, they defiantly remain the heretics. Previous profiles in the series include Steve Milloy, Dr. Craig Idso, and Dr. Roy Spencer. – The Editors

Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount of Brenchley, is a legend within the global warming skeptic community. The erudite Englishman was an advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher when climate change theories were in their infancy. In recent years, he has been one of the most eloquent and vocal critics of Al Gore and those who echo Gore’s alarmist cries.

Thatcher is often identified as the western leader most responsible for promoting the theory of man-made climate change that would explode into full-blown hysteria soon after she left office. This, Monckton says, is a misleading characterization. He recalled raising the issue with Thatcher as a possible concern, since carbon dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas, but after studying the issue with leading scientists, the Prime Minister and Monckton concluded that any potential warming would be insignificant compared to natural factors. Monckton re-entered the climate-change fray in 2006, writing two pieces in the Sunday Telegraph criticizing global warming alarmism. The articles caused an immediate stir.

“There were 127,000 hits at the Sunday Telegraph website within the first two hours of my article hitting the site,” Monckton recalled. “There was so much traffic that they actually crashed the site. It was the first time that had happened. I believe it’s still the only time that happened.”

In a world hungry for understandable, reasoned explanations of climate science, Monckton’s greatest gift is his skill as a communicator. Though he is not a climatologist, he is well versed in both the basics and the nuances of the issues surrounding climate change. Typical of his style is this video of Monckton politely explaining the realities of global warming theory to a member of Greenpeace during the Copenhagen climate conference in December.

Monckton is one of the few to address one of the tragic, unintended consequences of the world wide rush to produce biofuels as means of combating global warming: mass starvation in some of the world’s poorest nations. Between 2002 and 2008, world food prices more than doubled, according to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. With the United States leading the way in turning cropland previously used to grow foodstuffs to support energy crops, world food supplies have dropped, both raising food costs and leading to an unprecedented number of food riots throughout the third world. Long before an earthquake ravaged Haiti, Monckton witnessed firsthand the turmoil that the world food crisis had caused in that impoverished nation.

Many Haitians, Monckton found, regularly consume mud pies – literally: dirt and water pies that are sometimes (but not always) sprinkled with a modicum of something that might be actually nutritional. “It’s quite extraordinary that this should happen in the 21st century,” he said. “This [global warming alarmism] is causing mass starvation, but nobody seems to care. They’re too busy worrying about every icicle purportedly melting in Greenland.”

The former newspaperman places a great deal of the blame on the media. He argues that the press has championed a theory formulated by a couple of dozen scientists, refusing to reconsider any evidence that may challenge it. “The press, having nailed their flag to the mast of this sinking ship, have no stomach to go through the not inconsiderable embarrassment of admitting that they were wrong,” he said.

While Monckton was pleased that industrialized nations did not sign onto a Copenhagen treaty he believes would have effectively created a world government, he was not as upbeat as many others were about the result. Pointing to the establishment of a high-level panel to address global warming and the establishment of a green fund to transfer money from the first world to the third, he sees Copenhagen as yet another step down a gradual, yet slippery, slope. “They know now that they can’t do it all in one go,” he explained. “They tried, but that didn’t work, so they’ll try to do it incremental, almost imperceptible, steps.”

One video from Copenhagen shows Monckton shedding his customary genial air, as he takes young members of the group SustainUS sternly to task, calling them “Hitler youth” over and over again. Intrigued, I asked Monckton what about this seemingly harmless, naïve group of college-age kids so incensed him. The back story explained it all. At the time, Monckton was in the company of his Danish wife and three German citizens. All four were part of families that had suffered under Nazi rule and had been well-schooled in the tactics that the Nazi Party used to harass and intimidate their way to power. So, when SustainUS invaded a meeting of Americans For Prosperity that Monckton was attending, the sight of young people shouting slogans and attempting to stifle free speech shocked and frightened Lady Monckton and their guests.

“They said this is what the Hitler youth did,” Monckton recalled. “They came in and started shouting and pretty soon no one dared to ever have a meeting again. I was just horrified to see the distress on the faces of my wife and our German friends. Some of them were crying.”

But, despite all of the shouting and deal making, Lord Monckton believes that the global warming movement cannot sustain itself much longer. “They’ve cried wolf once too often,” he said. “The Australian Liberal party just sacked their leader for going along with this, and I think Republicans in America will be the next to go. So far Republicans have been fighting it based on the cost, but I think most now realize that they will have to kill it on the science. In very short order, the majority of the electorate is going to say: we don’t buy this rubbish.”

Well written article, Monckton has truly been a hero in relation to this un-debated future tax.

http://frontpagemag.com big ed

Global warming may be happening, but it sure doesn't feel like it! I have never felt so much cold in a winter before. Climate change (non-man made) is happening, but it is also happening to other planets as well. It's due to sunspot activity. We have had 4 ice ages before now, how did the earth warm up after them? Did the dinoasurs fart too much? Certainly wasn't the cause of CO2 increases, in fact, CO2 increases do not change the earth's temperature. Temperature changes preceed CO2 increases actually, and by several hundred years. The highest CO2 output in a 4 year period in the modern day was 1941-1945, during the second world war. After that, there was a 40 year cooling period, so what gives, Nazi greenshirts???????????? You have been duped by Adolf Gore so he can become rich (3 to 93 mil increase in net worth since his global warming crusade)

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/?s=DDT Ed Darrell

Now in July 1022, feel the same, Big Ed?

Morano

Can he really move his eyes like a lizard?

Alexej Buergin

He has "Graves Disease"; so show some good taste.

nuffalready

Monckton appears to be a fierce debater. So none of the true believing greenies, or any of the massive 'concensus' group of climate scientists care to have a go at him.

Morano, perhaps you could call him on and start with your impressive googly eyes arguement.

Black Eagle

The biggest CO2 lie is how they try to erase the Little Ice Age from history. Of course, we are warming up since c.1700, the bottom cold period of that chilly period. Naturallly, we have ‘warmed”, but oh, no Industrial Revolution back then, and not during the Medieval Warm Period before the LIA, when it was even warmer than today. Ooops, better erase all those climate gyrations, or our fun and profitable little theory about CO2 will… ah … melt away.

jbtrevor

@ Black Eagle, in addition the 'scientists' representing the "Church of the Alarm" selected temperature data from only the world-wide locations that would not interfere with their warming theories…

Guest

I'm a climate scientist, and have been for nearly 30 years. So, I'm one of the guys that selects data to fit my purposes, is involved in a global conspiracy to fraudulently attract funding, and is working towards a communist world government to force through emissions trading schemes. Except, I'm none of those things. The job of science is to do research and present findings, honestly and after discussion with other scientists. That's it; it's nothing to do with me if society disregards my work. It's not my job to push it through. I've done my bit by providing information; global warming is caused by man and is getting worse. This is not a belief, just a simple statement of fact. In 20 years even fools like you will be forced to admit it. But believe me, if you are successful now, and nothing is done, you will pay later; and much more than if you act now. And, you will be despised.

http://intensedebate.com/people/The_Inquisitor The_Inquisitor

If you are a scientist, where's the science?

A true scientist would dispassionately present the facts; he would not come across as a televangelist. Too much talk and no science. I suspect you are a fake.

http://intensedebate.com/people/johncarens johncarens

Hmm. A scientist, eh? There sure are quite a few anonymous "scientists" out there. Afraid of losing your funding? Maybe you belong to some sort of secret Masonic Scientific organization, complete with cool secret handshakes and stuff. And, as such, don't feel obligated to explain why none of the computer models that were in wide use until 2004 didn't predict the decline in world-wide temperatures for the last five years.

Democracy First

You provide a great summation of Global Warming inanity and its drivers.

"I'm one of the guys that selects data to fit my purposes, is involved in a global conspiracy to fraudulently attract funding, and is working towards a communist world government to force through emissions trading schemes."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

trickyblain

I see your irony detector is in the "off" position. He's mocking those who asert such a ridiculous conspirasy exists, and is even remotely plausable.

Democracy First

Actually, I was mocking his mockery.

I am not what i am

He was mocking his mockery, because where are the raw data sets? Why is the 1,000,000+ line code base not published? Because they are proprietary. We have been trying to get a look at the code and data sets for years, and finally the public is finding out that it is locked away hidden, only available to the high priest, James Hanson.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

The most annoying thing about this "debate" is how you morons are armed with these little tidbits you don't even understand about information you wouldn't know what to do with if you got it.

It only takes one article and some of you will prance around waving the example like you know something.

davarino

Apperantly your not familiar with Occam's razor. In many systems it only takes one component to fail and the whole system fails. Try removing the wire from the ignition coil of a car. Burn out a simple gasket on the space shuttle. Show a simple flaw in part of a theory and the whole theory must be reconsidered.

Nice try booba

I am not what I am

I would know exactly what to do with a data set and simulator code. I have written fluid dynamic simulators with linked sets of differential equations. So why do you think that the codebase and data set aren't available for general inspection? You think this is just some tiny issue? Bubba, you is ignorance. So what if only the high priests can see the code? Do you think there are any bugs that affect the outcome? I am not a climate scientist, I am a code monkey. I build simulators. They are in my field, and they are _NOT_ experts in this field. Release the code. Hide the code. One is science, the other is lies. Only liars hide.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

What code are you talking about? Whose "code" do you want that you can't get. Try being specific….I can't argue with the fact that you don't have information you think you should.

What do you program in…just curious.

davarino

bubba you know exactly what code he is talking about. There you go being a slippery bugger again.The simulation code that gives the "global scientists" the answer they want. If you have ever written or seen fluid dynamics code, which is similar to what the "global warming scientists" are using, you know that there are so many variables that affect the outcome. Its not like E=mc2, plug in the variables and get an answer that is almost exact. These simulators have to be tweeked until you get outcomes that are similar to what you have measured in the lab. With global science, you have no idea what the outcome is supposed to be, unless of course you are "global scientists".

So the sceptics would like to see how they setup the software, what the variables are…and so on. Thats all, whats the big secret.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

"bubba you know exactly what code he is talking about…The simulation code that gives the "global scientists" the answer they want."

Oh the "global scientists code"….of course…

"If you have ever written or seen fluid dynamics code, which is similar to what the "global warming scientists" are using, you know that there are so many variables that affect the outcome."

When have you written any code in any language for anything? I just asked the guy which code he wanted to get that he was being refused access to. Let anonymous answer…since he works in simulations….lol.

"So the sceptics would like to see how they setup the software, what the variables are…and so on. Thats all, whats the big secret."

Again…who is "they"? University of East Anglia? NASA? Some other scientist? What kind of request has been made for said material? By whom? If he hasn't asked for it personally, who is trying to get it and told him it was inaccessible?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

If you truly are a climate scientist, where do you get your funding? By adhering to the party line, history has shown you are infinitely more likely to get funding for your research, than by being skeptical.

This central fact clearly shows that science … especially global warming science … is not pure, and is driven by money and political demands.

Can you trust such science?

When AGW goes down in flames, can you possibly imagine how much you and other scientists who sounded the "alarm" will be despised?

trickyblain

"This central fact clearly shows that science … especially global warming science … is not pure, and is driven by money and political demands."

And of course the same holds for those in the AGW-denying camp. And they have one hell of a lot more $$$ to spend on research to disprove climate change exists, is furthered by human activity, and is a true threat. Yet they have not been able to sustain a convincing argument – especially among peers. I wonder why?

txn4ever

tricky,

One of the basic tenets of science when a theory is allegedly "proven" is allowing other scientists complete and unfettered access to the process, procedures, and data used to prove the theory. In this regard, consensus is never proof of anything.

AGW has yet to be proven. The scientists that say it is proven refuse to allow other scientists access to the process, procedures, and data. AGW alarmists always say they have a consensus. And that's proof enough that they aren't doing science. Besides they are now openly admitting that they faked the data.

As for the $$$, and who it comes, that's irrelevant in true science. In true science, the scientific method will always produce the right answer. In some cases the answer is "We don't know". The rest of the time it's definitive.

Democracy First

All you say is true. And let's add to that.

Most of the raw data was erased, on purpose!

GW advocates apparently locked out dissenting scientists from peer reviewed journals, and then audaciously stated that dissenters were without credibility because their papers were not peer reviewed!.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

what specifically are you talking about? What data was erased? Be specific…and try not to use devices like "GW advocates" because you are talking about tens of thousands of people. Narrow it down to an institution or incident that can be verified.

Oh I see….the only data that would help sort things out for you was data on paper and magnetic tape which is no longer at the University of East Anglia and hasn't been for twenty years. I copied a CD to my hardrive and threw the CD out. I guess I destroyed the original data.

How about the Global Historical Climatology Network? Not enough data for you? Don't act like all the data ever regarding climate change was kept in one big warehouse and they destroyed it to hide something from you.

In the 90's scientitst in the United States were given the same treatment and they had to turn over everything including their code and original data…everything. But hey, you don't have the original piece of paper someone wrote something down on in the 70's…so it's all a big conspiracy.

Democracy First

You either misunderstand what you read, or are deliberately misreading it. It's not about where the data was. It's about the actual data. It was dumped. No credible scientist, anywhere, would do such a thing. Which gives rise to extreme suspicion. And certainly undermines the credibility of their work. Because raw data is what allows others to verify your work.

All we have from them is their word as to what it was, and we have their computations based on the now unerifiable data.

Bear in mind, this program at East Anglia is perhaps the #1 AGW theory centre. Their research largely set off the theory and is largely quoted as evidence of it. It is an egregious error, pretty much unheard of amongst credible scientists, to throw away raw data.

As the article points out, "The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible."

And as the article quotes an environmental scientist, "The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

You either misunderstand what you read, or are deliberately misreading it. It's not about where the data was. It's about the actual data. It was dumped.

Um…it was paper and magnetic tape (probably 1"). The article you posted said it was destroyed because of a physical storage issue. It didn't say that they ran their simulations, gathered the answers they wanted then dumped all the data from their computers leaving only the conclusions. That is silly.

"All we have from them is their word as to what it was, and we have their computations based on the now unerifiable data."

um…no…but what they don't have is the original copies of some pre 80's data on paper and magnetic tape. Hey, I understand…if I was getting audited and only had summary statements of my receipts prepared at the time, but the receipts got destroyed….who knows…maybe I faked it.

Let's say there was a warehouse of magnetic tape and paper notes in some back building at the University. Would you would be down there going through all that shit? Of course not. Weather station data isn't very exciting…and if you love it that much you can find pretty much every scrap of it on the Global Historical Climatology Network or through NASA.

Democracy First

Don't overlook the hundreds of billions, maybe even trillions, in cap and trade business as a solution to the presumed man made global warming crisis. In other words, many of the biggest corporations (i.e., biggest pockets) on Earth are huge supporters of GW theory.

And there's no question that GW supporting scientists have been getting substantial grants. Apparently Michael Mann, now famous for his Climategate emails, received 2.4 million. That's a heck of a lot of motivation.

And now we learn the head of the IPCC, like Al Gore, has been profiting hugely from investments in companies that will trade credits and otherwise stand to gain.

Chances are you will agree that the UN is largely dominated by 3 rd world countries (which is why, for example, we get iran or Libya heading up the UN Human Rights Commission – or whatever it's called now), and they are to be the prime financial beneficiaries if carbon credit trading. Naturally, then, not only do they love GW theory and its solutions, but so does the UN, an institution empowered and enriched.

So, in fact, there are probably, if anything, "one hell of a lot more $$$ to spend on research to PROVE climate change exists."

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

But the difference is that those who don't adhere to the party line on AGW are not the ones pulling the strings, are they? The "$$$" goes to those who are on board with AGW, not the reverse. They have to prove that human activity has caused harm to the climate, and they haven't been able to do it. Indeed, we find out that they have been fudging the data, in hopes of influencing international treaties.

And those who aren't on board DON'T GET PEER REVIEWS. They are denied such reviews by those who have a political agenda. I wonder why?

Democracy First

I'll add to your post and my previous one….Turns out western governments through various green tax grabs were looking at a good boost in tax revenues.

So, here's who has already and stands in future to profit from GW theory: Government, huge carbon credit trading corporations, GW theorists, Al Gore and others investing already in the right companies in anticipation of green policies, the UN for overseeing international carbon trading and being empowered and enriched by it, and 3rd world countries who will be paid gigantic carbon credit trading sums (from sucker western nations, naturally) for unusued carbon burning allowances. And who knows who else I've missed.

No wonder this quagmire.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

So it's all a corrupt conspiracy? Of course…just like everything else around here. It's not that in this world obsessed with money that government has to alter the structure of subsidy and regulation to make sure things that are good for us (like alternative energies) aren't cost prohibitive…because you know what the cheapest thing to do it….just dump it on your head, just pollute away with out a care in the world….that's cheap. Developing new things…expensive…risky…takes vision and shit. Doing what daddy did and burn da coal and oil….cheap.

Democracy First

It didn't start off as a conspiracy. Nor is it now a grand conspiracy. Rather, as the ball started rolling and more and more people, companies, institutions and scientists became personally, financially, politically and professionally invested in AGW theory, smaller conspiracies developed. For example, prominent AG scientists acting together to keep dissenting climate scientists' voices from being heard and published. They were not acting in concert with, say, corporations standing to hugely profit from AGW. But those companies supported these scientists financially, som rewarded them indirectly for shutting out skeptics.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

Thats ridiculous. What companies and people would you say are "invested" to the point that they need cap and trade laws or something to "pay out". When companies invest money (in say infrastructure for burning coal and deslivering energy) then they expect to make a lot more money than they invested. That's the point of investing money.

davarino

It just might be a conflict of interest. Another thing to consider

Democracy First

I'm not using the word 'invested" as in already have invested a great sum of money. I mean invested as in, are salivating at the exponential growth in size and profit they anticipate, for which they've already begun tremendous preparation.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

What preparation? Are "they" setting up bank accounts for this coming windfall…..what are you talking about? WHO exactly?

davarino

Ok how do you feel about nuclear energy? Wind and solar energy will not fulfill our energy needs, not unless you cover large portions of land with wind generators and solar panels. You can supliment with wind and solar but its contribution will be minute.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

and it might be that way for several more decades.

I don't object to nuclear power because of fears of meltdown or anything….but nuclear power plants take a lot of water, are expensive and time consuming to build and then what do you do with the waste?

The point is to start now making a serious effort to create new forms of energy production. I don't expect coal companies and oil companies to do the necessary work to make themselves irrelevant. The entire cap and trade idea (which on FPM is about giving money to third world countries and us play with sticks) is actually about charging companies for their pollution and diverting money to the challenge of alternative energies.

You think an oil company will ever build a energy plant that harnesses waves? Burning stuff we dig out of the earth will continue to be "cheaper" because they save money by dumping out the pollutants. "we" pay later.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

You need to read Algore's book "Earth in the Balance", which started much of the current alarmism. If he had his way, he would cause the deaths of billions of people through starvation, reduce the global human population to 250 million, and return us all to the early 19th Century.

Come to think of it, I believe that I'll take a nice drive in my 1969 Dodge Superbee 6-Pack, today, which gets 3.5 miles per gallon. On a pleasant country road, I'll also burn some rubber off of the rear tires. All in your honor, bub …

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

Yeah I know what you mean. They are trying to keep the local lake clean, so I went and threw some wrappers and old motor oil in it, just to show those annoying environmentalist. They want the lake clean for everyone…including me…can you believe the nerve?

Stephen Brady

Right on, Bubba! Now, you're talking!

Gerald Smith

The funding the skeptics have received from all sources is measured in the llions while the fundinding received by the alarmist scientists is measured in the billions . To maintain that level of funding the scientists have to flavor their proposals to reflect that they are trying to prove Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Raymond in DC

Anyone who suggests the science is "settled" is no scientist. Science, by its very nature, is never settled. And the refusal to respond to changes in "data" only reflects a certain wooden-headedness. Gore who relied so much on his mentor, Dr. Reveille, now speaks of the good scientist's "senility" for changing his attitude based on new data.

Moreover, how can a real scientist rely on data increasingly reliant on model-derived extrapolation because ever fewer thermometers are being used (often in lower latitudes and elevations situated closer to cities)? Talk about selecting data to fit one's purposes!

And how is it that a "climate scientist" of 30 years can't even put his name and credentials on the line to backup his claims?

Optimus Maximus

If you ARE a scientist, then you should remember what they taught us in college:
Show your work and no partial credit.

That's been the constant achille's heel of the AGW proponents, THEY REFUSE TO SHOW THEIR WORK OR THEIR DATA.

Well, that and the fact that ALL of their models have consistently been WRONG….

If your "scientific results" are not verifiable, your calculations not reproducible, and your models fail to reflect reality, you have what is known in the scientific community as an incorrect hypothisis.

Back to the drawing board, all you AGW believers…

davarino

Oh he is a climate scientist so we should just take his word for it. Then why do you guys have to fudge the data and play hide and seek with the results and procedures and …… Lets have an open and honest debate, lay it all out on the table. Why wont Gore debate any of the sceptics? What is he afraid of? Why have the "scientists" worked so hard to keep sceptics from publishing peer reviewed articles? I dont understand what your all so afraid of, its all settled, therefore it should be a slam dunk. Debate, put it to bed, determine the truth, the AGW crowd wins and we all go home and drive golf carts, and huddle around to share body heat.

I would prefer to see some proof please. Is that asking to much? Lemmings!

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

That's why you have to keep denying it…because you think even seeing a problem at all means we don't have cars and are playing with sticks or something. Some vision. I tell you what idiot…since you're obviously too scared to do anything to help…get out of the way.

You don't want proof…which is why most of you are trying to dwell exclusively in the temperature data models….which is the esoteric, theoretical side of things. You're so conditioned to reject the thought that the way we do things can't go on like this forever, that when you read some real boot-to-mudd research or see examples of Climate Change…you ignore it with a snarl.

davarino

bubba watch this and get back to me, if you can understand the equations and logic.

So now its not about temperature? Who is the idiot now? What else would it be about, kryptonite? You slippery weasle, you argue a point about as well as a child, the way you change subject.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

Oh holy christ….this is an hour and a half. I think this is the same lecture that FPM was using months ago when they wrote the previous article about this guy. There is a lot of recycling and reposting around here. I'm not watching this again….you can look back at the comments on the other article about this guy.

Temperature is an issue of course….but that's why safely tucked into your chairs you can pronounce things unfounded and untrue because some data or another…some piece of paper or old 1" tape…isn't available for you to look at. Don't any of you travel? It's like you look outside at your suburban or rural neighborhood and since it's a nice day there is no Climate Change.

The focus on "global" temperature change overall is because that is probably the hardest thing to lock down or prove. That's what I was saying. So get it right. I didn't say it doesn't matter, I said it's like focusing on the overall measurable pollution averages of the oceans to decide there isn't that much pollution in the ocean….meanwhile there is a ball of garabge the size of a small state floating around.

The reason "Climate Change" is the better way to say it is because "global warming" has commentators saying it's bunk because it's snowing in winter. It's the shift in climate that global warming can cause (if it's real) that is to be feared….not the world getting really hot and catching fire.

davarino

He doesnt talk about lost data, he talks about data that was outright changed to fit the desired result.

He does talk about climate change and how it has been happening throughout earth's history. So you might want to change your talking points.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

I don't have "talking points". I read the articles and I post.

Lord Christopher Monckton also appears on Glen Beck's show and says that the "pact" is just a conspiracy to form a one-world government.

I'm not sure what "pact" he is talking about, but anyone that goes on Beck to back up his insanity is asking to not be taken seriously. I think I will change my name to Lord Bubba so I have a little extra gravitas.

I guess a good question for you is how do you know who to believe? You believe this guy right out of the box and accept that Al Gore is a liar that can't be trusted….so aren't you just fitting evidence to support how you want to feel about it….

irish

Global warming or cooling is caused by the SUN! What kind of scientist are you?

Robert

I am a climate scientist also and I disagree with your conclusions, based on the science we practice. You state:
"I've done my bit by providing information; global warming is caused by man and is getting worse. This is not a belief, just a simple statement of fact. In 20 years even fools like you will be forced to admit it."
My question is, given the plateauing of global temperatures for the past ten years (with some mild cooling likely ahead) in 20 years will it be COLDER or WARMER than it is now? You cannot tell me with any real probability, let alone certainty, that it will be one or the other. Given this, don't you think it is you that sounds foolish?

only 5th form

have you read what you just wrote . you have just said you have no idea whats going to happen in the next 20 years and that we are foolish?

Gerald Smith

Where is the proof that man is causing Global Warming? If it is the models where is the proof that they are accurate? Perhaps the proof ypu have is that you, the IPCC nor anyone else knows but since you don't " it must be anthropogenic.

Abraham

Monckton is the politician with the agenda – and no one else.

NOT A SINGLE scientific referenve Monckten uses to argue his case agree with him! Every writer of those very same references claim Monckten is misusing and twisting the data and fact to suit his own argument and not to present it in the true manner it has been written.

Ed, 56 years ago, I used to play in thick fogs of DDT sprayed by my hometown to control mosquitoes. Now, at 61 years of age, I am the picture of health, can outrun men 40 years younger than me, and thoroughly enjoy cross-country skiing.

Could it be that Lord Monckton was correct, and that millions of people were saved from malaria-carrying mosquitoes throughout the world? Or do you simply have Milloy-a-phobia?

How does your being 61 kill malaria-carrying mosquitoes? If you can tell me that, I'd have to agree with you that Monckton could be correct.

But absent your going to Africa personally to squish a few million mosquitoes, no, your being healthy after being exposed to DDT doesn't make Monckton correct.

1. DDT isn't acutely dangerous to humans, if used correctly. The larger the creature, it takes an enormous amount of DDT to do fatal damage.

2. Your having survived indicates one of the key flaws of using poisons to control insects: Some will survive, and if they go on to breed, their natural resistance to the substance will be passed on. The World Health Organization scrapped their very ambitious malaria-eradication campaign in about 1966 when it became clear that mosquitoes evolved resistance and complete immunity to DDT much quicker than they had hoped, perhaps with the aid of over-use of DDT by agricultural interests. Today every mosquito on Earth has at least one of the two alleles that provide resistance to DDT. Those species that carry malaria often have up to 60 copies of the alleles. They digest DDT like food.

3. Every nation that wiped out malaria did so with rising incomes, better housing, much better medical care, and occasionally, some aid from pesticides. Monckton is just naive and dumb enough to think that he can poison Africa and have it come out more healthy, instead of building the jobs, housing market, medical care infrastructure and education that every other nation uses to fight malaria. DDT can't do it alone, never could.

4. Recent studies show that DDT is particularly dangerous to the children of women who were exposed to DDT. Since you're not a woman, maybe your kids missed the problem. Maybe.

5. Many studies show that accumulated DDT and DDT by-products in the environment screw up the endocrine systems of larger animals without killing them. It makes fish grow androgynous or hermaphroditic and unable to reproduce. it makes male alligators have female organs. It shrinks the testicles of humans and grows breasts on boys. You missed it? You got acute exposures. You should be happy your children didn't get the full dose of residual stuff that would have been left for them had we not stopped using DDT willy-nilly in the U.S.

Do you have any study to show that DDT is NOT harmful to wildlife? Any study to show that it is NOT an uncontrollable wild card when sprayed in the wild?

Did your town have a lot of malaria before you played in the DDT fog? That would be unusual, since the CDC — the agency set up to fight malaria in the U.S. — says malaria was essentially wiped out in the U.S. by 1939, seven years before DDT became available.

Can you explain how it is that those nations that still use DDT have malaria, while those nations who stopped using it 40 years ago have remained malaria-free — if DDT is, indeed, a great tool for fighting malaria?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

I will focus on one paragraph from your longish post:

"Every nation that wiped out malaria did so with rising incomes, better housing, much better medical care, and occasionally, some aid from pesticides. Monckton is just naive and dumb enough to think that he can poison Africa and have it come out more healthy, instead of building the jobs, housing market, medical care infrastructure and education that every other nation uses to fight malaria. DDT can't do it alone, never could."

First, calling Lord Monckton "naive and dumb" is an intellectually-dishonest way of distracting people's attention away from his arguments, before he has even made them. Besides being an ad hominem attack, it is a red herring.

Second, have you ever been to Africa. I have, and it is a cesspool of political and religious violence. Of course, DDT is not meant to be a cure-all, without any other method of control. However, the other methods just don't exist in Africa, especially in the equatorial sub-Saharan zone.

I do, however, live in the United States. With the incomes, housing, and medical care of this nation, malaria is on the rise, especially in the deep South. Why is that, do you think? Could it be that DDT has been banned, and aggressive pest control with other agents is not allowed by the brain-dead greens that control the EPA and other government agencies?

DDT was used in my hometown, in the DEM capital of America called Cook County, Illinois, to keep down ordinary mosquitoes, who … as someone who is so well-informed as you would know … carry other diseases.

And my children turned out very well, indeed, thank you for your concern …

First, calling Lord Monckton "naive and dumb" is an intellectually-dishonest way of distracting people's attention away from his arguments, before he has even made them. Besides being an ad hominem attack, it is a red herring.

It's not a red herring when it's the entire point. Monckton claims that we can merely poison Africa to health. No malaria fighter makes that claim. If his claim is not naive, it's evil.

Which do you think Monckton is, ignorant, or evil? They get the same result in this case.

Second, have you ever been to Africa. I have, and it is a cesspool of political and religious violence. Of course, DDT is not meant to be a cure-all, without any other method of control. However, the other methods just don't exist in Africa, especially in the equatorial sub-Saharan zone.

And consequently, because much of Africa is a "cesspool of political and religious violence" (your description), the claim that anyone there paid serious attention to Rachel Carson's book should be immediately suspect. No, I don't think Idi Amin refused to use DDT out of deference to American environmentalists — but that is Monckton's claim if we analyze it. Naive or evil? Which is Monckton?

You're right: Politics plays a role. The claim that people warring within their own nations would refuse to use DDT is completely without evidence, let alone sense.

Plus, since DDT has never been banned in Africa (and the U.S. kept on manufacturing the stuff to export to Africa), the implicit claim of Monckton is that Africans are too stupid or too cowed to use DDT though they know it might save their lives. It's a racist, imperialist, error-ridden claim.

I do, however, live in the United States. With the incomes, housing, and medical care of this nation, malaria is on the rise, especially in the deep South. Why is that, do you think?

Got a source on that claim? I don't think it's accurate — yet. We've had malaria-carrying species in this nation forever. They were not made extinct here at any point. We eradicated the disease from humans, however, so there was no pool from which mosquitoes could draw the disease.

We're concerned about the spread of those mosquitoes now — cold stops them, and the climate in the U.S. is warming. So far we've had modest increases in dengue fever, but I am unaware of any cases of U.S.-bred malaria. Certainly not more than a dozen. Got a source?

Could it be that DDT has been banned, and aggressive pest control with other agents is not allowed by the brain-dead greens that control the EPA and other government agencies?

I see no evidence of that. Do you? Where?

DDT was used in my hometown, in the DEM capital of America called Cook County, Illinois, to keep down ordinary mosquitoes, who … as someone who is so well-informed as you would know … carry other diseases.

What other diseases did mosquitoes carry in Cook County in 1946?

DDT was used in my town, too. It wiped out robins, thrushes, finches, herons and egrets. We lived along the Snake River in southern Idaho. Mosquitoes could carry diseases there, too — but didn't. The spraying was merely to keep mosquitoes from biting.

And it stopped working before they stopped spraying. Mosquitoes developed resistance to the stuff.

And my children turned out very well, indeed, thank you for your concern …

Good. You can thank Rachel Carson and those who campaigned to stop malaria AND to stop the spraying of endocrine disrupting, testes-shrinking chemicals.

DDT played no role in protecting you from disease in Chicago, and its banning probably helped your kids more than we can know.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

Oh christ…DDT again? No one has ever said that DDT is harmful to humans…even direct contact and injestion in limited amounts. So at 61 you still don't understand the reason DDT was heavily regulated or that DDT is still in use around the world today but for limited purposes.

BernardL

I would take Lord Monckton's word over Al Goracle's any day. The driving force behind this huge global scam is carbon credit trading of which Goracle, East Anglia, the UN, the Media, and numerous politicians across the globe are so entrenched that facts contrary to their Global Warming Mafia theology must be denounced as heresy. The religion of Man-made Global Warming would end the day after a public debate between Lord Monckton and Al Goracle. Monckton would destroy him. Because Goracle would never debate anyone, this Global Warming Farce will only end when the bottom falls out of the Carbon Credit Trading Market extortion racket.

What do you have against Boy Scouts and the first point of the Scout Law? I'd think that, on that issue alone, Gore would win out.

BernardL

Gore is the most prolific liar of this age. If you believe Al Goracle is a truth teller then it would be best if we leave this discussion alone because your perception lies in an alternate reality from mine.

Yeah, I knew you didn't have any evidence. You've got a verdict now, too. Not what you wanted.

BernardL

I have evidence but my inter-dimensional translator is broken and I have no way of translating the information into a language those who share your reality can understand.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

Yes that alternate reality is the FPM bizarro world….and all your friends are there…like Beck and Hannity.

BernardL

Yep, we're all in it together in that we share the belief Al Gore is a liar and Man-made Global Warming is a global hoax created to exploit the imaginary carbon credit trading market now responsible for billions of pounds and dollars in fraud. Add to it the extortion of legitimate businesses world wide and Man-made Global Warming surpasses anything the Mafia ever did in reality or the Soparanos ever did in fiction.

It's a belief, though, not a finding based on fact. I dare you to make the case. Al Gore is an outstanding man, a devoted Christian, and you do yourself a disservice to make false claims against him.

Is global warming a hoax? Check the USDA plant zones for your town. They've changed in the past 40 years due to climate change. Check the birds that migrate through your town. See the note above by the guy who claimed tropical disease are making a comeback in the formerly temperate U.S.

It's no hoax, and birds, glaciers, deserts and mosquitoes don't read the newspapers to figure out what to do.

Gore makes his money off of computers, not carbon trading. You could look it up, were you interested in information. He's on the board of Apple. He's investing in technology that won't sell if warming is a hoax. He's putting his money where his mouth is, where the science shows it should be. You can invest otherwise. That in no way makes him a liar, nor an extorter. You don't have to invest wisely. Every man in America can be as big a fool as he chooses, under our Constitution, which Al Gore defends.

I'm sure that in Ed Darrell land all of what you say is true. Fortunately for the rest of us, reality is our base of operation.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

The sad thing is Beck and Hannity get paid large sums of money to spout this nonsense. You don't get paid anything and you will come here and defend your "reality" to the bitter end.

What has actually been done to prevent Global warming that you think is Mafia-like? You seem to forget whether you are slandering past events or events you fear that haven't happened yet.

BernardL

There's nothing sad about Beck and Hannity outing each new Man-made Global Warming fraud as it becomes public except if you're an acolyte of the new GW religion or a Carbon Credit trader. Here's just one of the many Mafia like frauds. If you want more, Bubba, do your own research only I would suggest opening your eyes this time.

bubba, shouldnt you be over in the other article defending Howard Zinn?

Bob

A “scientist” should understand that global warming, or global climate change, or global anything, must be measured on a geologic scale. Anything less can not possibly take into account the natural cyclical variations. 100 years worth of data is not even worth considering. 1000 years is still insufficient data. 10,000 years might let you see one complete climate cycle, but to see a trend would take 100s of thousands of years. That these alarmists use data from such a narrow time window, and even fudge those numbers, tell me they are without question, frauds.

TomPaine2

Hear hear! (Altho' this is addressed as reply to Bob's excellent comments, it's also intended as a general observation.)
There's not much I can add to the dissident voices except to say that I fully concur with Chris Monckton's view that the "anthropogenic climate change" priesthood of superstitionist, fraudulent anti-science, tautology, is set on one global agenda alone, and that is the final abrogation of the institution of the perfectly independent sovereign nation state republic; its final erasure from history, and the Malthusian elimination of at least five billion men, women and children from the planet.

But Monckton – although famously critical of the monarch of Britain, Elizabeth 2, when she let slip, at the Trinidad summit of "commonwealth" leaders earlier this year, that the British empire must "play its part" and must be restored for the "good" of the world and the "environment" (I paraphrase), and although he comes close to identifying the London-centered British-imperial financier oligarchy (the infamous Venetian Party of old), misses, by not being more specific in this regard.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JosephWiess JosephWiess

The sad part about this, is that bio-fuels will cause people to starve.
As a former farmer, I remember that our food was once sold all across the world, but with the move toward bio-fuels, more and more farmers are planting soy and corn, and forgetting that without food, the rest of the world will starve.

It's gotten so bad, that in Texas, Kinky Friedman is running for Ag commissioner, and his platform is the bio-fuels platform. The citizens of the world need to stand up and tell the globalists no and start planting food crops.

So if bin Laden tells us the sun rises in the east, and we agree, that makes us his bedfellows.

therealend

Even well-meaning International movements have created more disaster for human beings. How many people will die this century because of that?

USMCSniper

While many in Hollywood worshp at the altar of Gaia (Environmentalism), in reality they also worship at the altar of Midas (Money) and Narcissus (Ego). They build their pleasure palaces, travel in their limos and private jets, and cluck about themselves about how informed they feel they are.

Christopher Monckton is an incredible genius and a brilliant communicator. I am so grateful he is on the side of truth
He may not be a climatologist but he understands it well. The way he spews off the mathmatics of it all is more than impressive. I believe he knows more than those who have been educated in climatology. Could this be why David Suzuki won't debate him?

http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

I've made several requests to Horowitz to debate me about his zionist tendencies and constant lying. He has refused…and I am assuming that this is because he is a liar and scared and not because I am a nobody who's invite was itself a personal insult.

Bill

You are off. Monckton – who is not a scientist by any means but a politician – has actually been shown to be completely wrong in the scientific references he quotes to back his own arguments. Not only has his conclusions been wrong about proper scientific studies, but he has also used references that don't originate from proper sources, and some that even are pre-written drafts and not even completed studies.
And who is it that argues against Moncktons scientific claims? The very scientists who wrote the articles Monckton uses on a daily basis.

They claim Monckton is twisting their facts around and deny a very dangerous problem that face all of us, and denials like the ones he put forth is simply slowing down any decisions to make changes to save us from growing calamities of the future. According to the scientists there are thousands of studies to prove the reality of climate changes and them being unnatural and man-made, but not a single scientific study proving this to be wrong.

Monckton is simply a typical politician: trying to use persuation instead of facts for his own agenda.

Christopher Monckton is an incredible genius and a brilliant communicator. I am so grateful he is on the side of truth

If only he were on the side of truth, it would be wonderful.

Mr. Truth lies

Leftists think of "truth", scientists think of reality. Maybe you should checkout the great excuse making the AGW crowd. Sure their model predicted 10 degrees warming by 2000, and was wrong, and now in 2010, they have more excuses for the temperature dropping. Apparently they just "discovered" a layer of air that is holding more moisture than expected, thus stopping the massive warming predicted.

Just make an accurate prediction about the global temperature. The usual answer is that the temperature response is "non-linear". It's also not a potato. What is the temperature curve? logarithmic? You won't get answer on that one from any climate politician.

I'm still a Missouri native. Show me. I can find no such prediction, no such claim. Somebody is pulling your leg. Don't let 'em.

Democracy First

Those who take issue with skeptics seldom present any facts or testable reasoning. They merely say something like, "If only he were on the side of truth, it would be wonderful." Hence, Al Gore won't debate skeptics. Hence, skeptics are called "Deniers." Hence, the science is "settled." Hence, cooling proves warming. Hence, global warming becomes "climate change".
On the rare ocassion that they put up a serious argument, they're quickly battered by real facts and real truth.
Hence, we have Climategate, Himalaya galcier gate, weather station gate, and who knows how many other gates to come. The flood gates are just opening.

Just make an accurate prediction about the global temperature. The usual answer is that the temperature response is "non-linear". It's also not a potato. What is the temperature curve? logarithmic? You won't get answer on that one from any climate politician.

I had to laugh when I read that. That's exactly the answer I got at Anthony Watts's climate change denial blog, when I for an explanation of rising temperatures. Regardless of whether you're right in your criticism, you've directed it at the wrong party.

Jan

How gullible people are to be taken in by his garbage.

Kyle

Hi, this post is somewhat inaccurate. For one, the youth participating in the Americans for Prosperity event were a variety of U.S. youth, many with no affiliation to any organization. SustainUS simply filmed the event, and so people assume that everyone involved was a member of SustainUS. The diversity of U.S. youth supporting clean energy policies is quite large.

Democracy First

Given that they all acted in unison, it's logical to deduce that they were all in on a plan to disrupt the meeting and, in Brown Shirt fashion, prevent a man from speaking freely.

SCUMBUCKET

Is this the same Lord Monckton who calls Americans Nazis and Hitler Youth, and who accepts funding from Koch Industries, a leading petroleum company that has dumped 48 million into efforts to debunk global warming? Thought so…

Snapple

I used to read your site, but Lord Monckton is just like Ward Churchill. He mischaracterizes what real scientists say.

He also goes on Russia Today and says that Russia is 20 times more democratic than Britain. Global warming is real.

Bill

Your article is actually completely off. If people want facts and truth, the political agenda of Monckton only provides a twisted version of scientific facts.

A TV program was made about Moncktons 'scientific' support to his claims – and the real truth was that even the scientists that Monckton refer to in his arguments on climate change DISAGREE with him!
The very people he constantly point to as evidence to false climate change claims, say Monckton is twisting their data to fit his own agenda. In other words Monckton did not have EVEN ONE supporter amongst his own scientific references! On the contrary they said he is avoiding to bring the fact to people in which all scientific research shows one thing: CLIMATE PROBLEMS ARE REAL, UNNATURAL AND ARE CAUSED BY MAN.http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y5j3v/Sto…

http://malaysiapalmoil.blogspot.com Palm Oil Land For Sale

I believe that is among the so much important information for me. And i’m glad reading your article. But should remark on some common issues, The site style is perfect, the articles is in point of fact nice : D. Excellent job, cheers

Geraldo Kufel

I’m not really certain if I am posting this in the right location, but I’m getting ready to transfer to the United States and am wanting to secure jobs in the i . t field. I currently have a job lead with a business (LTJ Management, LLC, 900 Congress Ave, Suite L-150, Austin, TX 78701 (512) 895-9500) and wanted some ideas on the best way to study them to see if they might be a great business to work for. I’ve checked on their website, but thought somebody here may have a few other thoughts on where to look. Thank very much.

Harvey

Are you really going to take this guy seriously? He claims to have a cure for HIV and Grave's disease. I got to talk to Monckton several times and he's a narcissistic egomaniac who won't stop talking.

oldjags

Overpopulation is something the green movement has been blaming for a whole host of problems – from pollution to the loss of the rain forests. Mass starvation as a result of combating global warming is just another benefit they don't really want to advertise.

temarch

I believe the farmers who decide to grow soy beans or corn do so from an economic standpoint based on the market for them and are not part of some large conspiracy. It is unintended consequences and not some group directing who will grow what and where. The ones promoting the biofuels are the "true believers" who think the world is coming to an end over "petro pollution", wars to secure oil or the like. Most are just "useful idiots" who don't see the big picture and all fall for things like this. Look at the clamor for electric vehicles. No!!! They don't pollute!!! No one considers that the electricity to charge them comes from carbon fueled plants, 50% of which are coal fired. And batteries aren't the most environment friendly things and need to be replaced about every 4-5 years at a very high cost. Unintended consequences! Fear of global warming just puts all this in hyperdrive.